## Facts

- Clyde J. Robb, as administrator ad prosequendum of Georgiana Robb’s estate, brought a negligence action against John C. Hickey, Inc. and Roger W. King for wrongful death.
- The tried issues were defendants’ negligence and the decedent’s contributory negligence.
- The jury was instructed that if contributory negligence by the decedent was established, comparing relative degrees of negligence was legally immaterial.
- In the trial judge’s absence, the jury returned a written verdict at the clerk’s desk stating: (1) both sides were negligent, (2) defendants were “more negligent,” and (3) it “recommend[ed]” a $2,000 award to plaintiff against defendants.
- Plaintiff challenged the verdict as ambiguous, inconsistent, inadequate, and contrary to the court’s charge, and sought to set it aside.
- Defendants moved to mould the verdict into a defense verdict, characterizing the verdict as merely informal and asserting the jury necessarily found contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether a verdict finding negligence by both sides, comparing degrees of negligence, and recommending a plaintiff’s damages award is internally inconsistent and substantively defective.
2. Whether the court may mould such a verdict into a valid judgment when the jury’s true intent does not clearly appear, particularly where the verdict was received and recorded without the trial judge.

## Decision

- The court held the verdict was self-contradictory, inconsistent, and ambiguous as a whole.
- The court ruled the defect was substantive, not a correctable informality in expression.
- The court denied defendants’ motion to mould the verdict.
- The court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A court may mould an informal verdict to make it formal and effective only when the jury’s real purpose and intent clearly, sufficiently, and convincingly appears from the record.
- A verdict that simultaneously (1) finds negligence on both sides, (2) engages in comparative weighing of negligence, and (3) awards damages to the plaintiff in a contributory-negligence regime is substantively inconsistent and cannot be enforced as rendered.
- When an inconsistent verdict is recorded in the absence of the trial judge, and the inconsistency prevents a clear determination of the jury’s intent, the court may not cure the problem by guessing which part controls; the proper remedy is a new trial.

## Conclusion

Because the recorded verdict could not be reconciled with itself or with the contributory-negligence instructions, and because the jury’s intent was not unmistakable, the court refused to mould it and ordered a new trial.


Robb v. John C. Hickey, Inc., 19 N.J. Misc. 455, 20 A.2d 707 (N.J. Cir. Ct. 1941)